Compulsory Third Party Insurance, Insurance

Where the cause of psychological sequelae following an accident changes, so too may the entitlement to damages

3 May, 2021

When physical symptoms caused by an accident have ceased, do psychological symptoms secondary to those symptoms also cease to be causally related to an accident, and who bears the onus of proof? The NSW Court of Appeal recently explored this issue in Dungan v Padash [2021] NSWCA 66.

Author: Rihab Abdul-Rahman
Judgment date: 23 April 2021
Citation: Dungan v Padash [2021] NSWCA 66
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal¹

Principles

Once the physical symptoms caused by an accident have ceased, psychological symptoms secondary to those symptoms also cease to be causally related to an accident.
Although a defendant has an evidentiary onus to show that continued symptoms of pain are not attributable to an accident, once that onus is discharged, it is for a plaintiff to show that the continuance of psychiatric symptoms relates to the accident caused pain, or the consequences of that pain.

Background

The Claimant suffered a lower back injury and psychological injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30 November 2016.

It was agreed that the Claimant’s lower back injury was a result of aggravation of existing degenerative changes. It was also agreed that the Claimant’s psychological injury, namely an adjustment disorder, was linked to the physical pain resulting from the subject accident.

The Primary Judge found that the Claimant’s physical injuries subsided within a year of the motor vehicle accident but the Claimant continued to suffer ongoing psychiatric injuries in the form of an adjustment disorder.

Damages of $278,817.75 were assessed.

The Primary Judge did not accept the opinion that once the Claimant’s physical injuries subsided, so too did his psychiatric morbidity.

On appeal, the Defendant contended that the primary judge erred in finding that, after a year from the motor vehicle accident, the Claimant’s ongoing psychiatric injury was causally related to the subject accident and that if there was any psychiatric disorder, it was not referrable to the physical injuries.

By way of cross-appeal, the Claimant challenged the finding that the physical restrictions attributable to the accident subsided within a year of the accident and argued that his psychological condition continued to be related to the physical injuries sustained in the subject accident. The Claimant further contended that given his lower back injury was aggravated by the subject accident, the onus was on the Insurer to provide evidence explaining how and when the Claimant’s injuries ceased to be related to the accident.

Decision

Ultimately, the court found that:

The physical pain from which the Claimant suffered was the only source of his psychological condition.
There was sufficient evidence to determine that any physical injury would have resolved within 12 months from the subject accident. Ongoing pain was attributable to pre-existing degenerative changes that would have been symptomatic in any event.
Given that the Claimant’s physical injuries subsided within 12 months of the subject accident, there was nothing to link the psychological condition from which the Claimant now suffers, with the subject accident.
Given that the Claimant’s psychological injury was linked to ongoing physical pain, but such pain was no longer attributable to the subject accident, the primary judge erred in failing to find that the Claimant’s ongoing psychological symptoms were not causally related to the accident
The primary judge failed to limit the award of damages up until 12 months following the subject accident.

In relation to the key issue, White JA stated, at [53]:

” The primary judge said he saw no reason why a cessation of physical morbidity should necessarily result in an end to mental health concerns…But the evidence of Dr Jungfer, which the primary judge accepted….was that the adjustment disorder was inextricably linked to chronic pain complaints. She also said that it was linked to change in life circumstances, being his inability to work. But this was secondary to his pain.”

Having correctly found that the claimant’s mental harm was associated with his pain and restriction, and that such pain and restriction was no longer attributable to the accident, that should have led the primary judge to find that the claimant’s ongoing psychological symptoms were not causally related to the short-term trauma suffered from the accident.

In her dissenting judgment McCallum JA emphasised that any assumption that a secondary condition will necessarily cease with the resolution of the primary condition can be displaced by evidence. In her opinion, that had occurred in this case.

Insofar as the onus of proof was concerned, White JA observed, at [37]:

” As Dixon CJ said in Watts v Rake it was for the defendant to exclude the operation of the accident as a contributory cause to the plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms of pain. This the appellant did….(The expert medical) opinions amply supported the primary judge’s findings that on the balance of probabilities, the soft tissue injury suffered from the accident did resolve within 12 months of the accident…(Ongoing) pain was explicable as the result of degenerative changes in the lumbar spine attributable to the pre-existing degenerative changes.”

Final result

The Supreme Court set aside the previous judgment and reduced the Claimant’s damages to $41,965.65.

The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s cost of the appeal.

Why this case is important

This case illustrates the importance of acknowledging that the cause of psychological sequalae following an accident can change. If the evidence establishes that the physical effects of an injury resolve and symptoms are replaced by some other cause, such as degenerative changes, it may be argued that any ongoing psychological symptoms are no longer accident related. The onus of proof remains with the defendant to exclude the accident as the cause of ongoing symptoms. There may well be cases where ongoing psychiatric symptoms are referrable to both continuing physical injuries and some other cause. In those cases, the entitlement to damages will not necessarily be lost.

¹White JA, McCallum JA & Emmett AJA

published by

McCabes News

Recent Insights

View all

Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Canadian Court elevates thumbs-up emoji to signature status

In June 2023, a Canadian Court in South-West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land and Cattle Ltd, 2023 SKKB 116, held that the "thumbs-up" emoji carried enough weight to constitute acceptance of contractual terms, analogous to that of a "signature", to establish a legally binding contract. Facts This case involved a contractual dispute between two parties namely South-West Terminal ("SWT"), a grain and crop inputs company; and Achter Land & Cattle Ltd ("ALC"), a farming corporation. SWT sought to purchase several tonnes of flax at a price of $17 per bushel, and in March 2021, Mr Mickleborough, SWT's Farm Marketing Representative, sent a "blast" text message to several sellers indicating this intention. Following this text message, Mr Mickleborough spoke with Mr Achter, owner of ALC, whereby both parties verbally agreed by phone that ALC would supply 86 metric tonnes of flax to SWT at a price of $17 per bushel, in November 2021. After the phone call, Mr Mickleborough applied his ink signature to the contract, took a photo of it on his mobile phone and texted it to Mr Archter with the text message, "please confirm flax contract". Mr Archter responded by texting back a "thumbs-up" emoji, but ultimately did not deliver the 87 metric tonnes of flax as agreed. Issues The parties did not dispute the facts, but rather, "disagreed as to whether there was a formal meeting of the minds" and intention to enter into a legally binding agreement. The primary issue that the Court was tasked with deciding was whether Mr Achter's use of the thumbs-up emoji carried the same weight as a signature to signify acceptance of the terms of the alleged contract. Mr Mickleborough put forward the argument that the emoji sent by Mr Achter conveyed acceptance of the terms of the agreement, however Mr Achter disagreed arguing that his use of the emoji was his way of confirming receipt of the text message. By way of affidavit, Mr Achter stated "I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract"; and "I did not have time to review the Flax agreement and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message." Consensus Ad Idem In deciding this issue, the Court needed to determine whether there had been a "formal meeting of the minds". At paragraph [18], Justice Keene considered the reasonable bystander test: " The court is to look at “how each party’s conduct would appear to a reasonable person in the position of the other party” (Aga at para 35). The test for agreement to a contract for legal purposes is whether the parties have indicated to the outside world, in the form of the objective reasonable bystander, their intention to contract and the terms of such contract (Aga at para 36). The question is not what the parties subjectively had in mind, but rather whether their conduct was such that a reasonable person would conclude that they had intended to be bound (Aga at para 37)." Justice Keene considered several factors including: The nature of the business relationship, notably that Mr Achter had a long-standing business relationship with SWT going back to at least 2015 when Mr Mickleborough started with SWT; and The consistency in the manner by which the parties conducted their business by way of verbal conversation either in person or over the phone to come to an agreement on price and volume of grain, which would be followed by Mr Mickleborough drafting a contract and sending it to Mr Achter. Mr Mickleborough stated, "I have done approximately fifteen to twenty contracts with Achter"; and The fact that the parties had both clearly understood responses by Mr Achter such as "looks good", "ok" or "yup" to mean confirmation of the contract and "not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract" by Mr Achter. Judgment At paragraph [36], Keene J said: "I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a thumbs-up emoji. In my opinion, when considering all of the circumstances that meant approval of the flax contract and not simply that he had received the contract and was going to think about it. In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on numerous other occasions." The court satisfied that the use of the thumbs-up emoji paralleled the prior abbreviated texts that the parties had used to confirm agreement ("looks good", "yup" and "ok"). This approach had become the established way the parties conducted their business relationship. Significance of the Thumbs-Up Emoji Justice Keene acknowledged the significance of a thumbs-up emoji as something analogous to a signature at paragraph [63]: "This court readily acknowledges that a thumbs-up emoji is a non-traditional means to "sign" a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a "signature" – to identify the signator… and… to convey Achter's acceptance of the flax contract." In support of this, Justice Keene cited the dictionary.com definition of the thumbs-up emoji: "used to express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications, especially in western cultures", confirming that the thumbs-up emoji is an "action in an electronic form" that can be used to allow express acceptance as contemplated under the Canadian Electronic Information and Documents Act 2000. Justice Keene dismissed the concerns raised by the defence that accepting the thumbs up emoji as a sign of agreement would "open the flood gates" to new interpretations of other emojis, such as the 'fist bump' and 'handshake'. Significantly, the Court held, "I agree this case is novel (at least in Skatchewan), but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage." Ultimately the Court found in favour of SWT, holding that there was a valid contract between the parties and that the defendant breached by failing to deliver the flax. Keene J made a judgment against ALC for damages in the amount of $82,200.21 payable to SWT plus interest. What does this mean for Australia? This is a Canadian decision meaning that it is not precedent in Australia. However, an Australian court is well within its rights to consider this judgment when dealing with matters that come before it with similar circumstances. This judgment is a reminder that the common law of contract has and will continue to evolve to meet the everchanging realities and challenges of our day-to-day lives. As time has progressed, we have seen the courts transition from sole acceptance of the traditional "wet ink" signature, to electronic signatures. Electronic signatures are legally recognised in Australia and are provided for by the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 and the Electronic Transactions Regulations 2020. Companies are also now able to execute certain documents via electronic means under s 127 of the Corporations Act. We have also seen the rise of electronic platforms such as "DocuSign" used in commercial relationships to facilitate the efficient signing of contracts. Furthermore, this case highlights how courts will interpret the element of "intention" when determining whether a valid contract has been formed, confirming the long-standing principle that it is to be assessed objectively from the perspective of a reasonable and objective bystander who is aware of all the relevant facts. Overall, this is an interesting development for parties engaging in commerce via electronic means and an important reminder to all to be conscious of the fact that contracts have the potential to be agreed to by use of an emoji in today's digital age.

Published by Foez Dewan

29 August, 2023

Government

Venues NSW ats Kerri Kane: Venues NSW successful in overturning a District Court decision

The McCabes Government team are pleased to have assisted Venues NSW in successfully overturning a District Court decision holding it liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a patron who slipped and fell down a set of steps at a sports stadium; Venues NSW v Kane [2023] NSWCA 192 Principles The NSW Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the principles regarding the interpretation of the matters to be considered under sections5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). There is no obligation in negligence for an occupier to ensure that handrails are applied to all sets of steps in its premises. An occupier will not automatically be liable in negligence if its premises are not compliant with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Background The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW against Venues NSW (VNSW) alleging she suffered injuries when she fell down a set of steps at McDonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle on 6 July 2019. The plaintiff attended the Stadium with her husband and friend to watch an NRL rugby league match. It was raining heavily on the day. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell while descending a stepped aisle which comprised of concrete steps between rows of seating. The plaintiff sued VNSW in negligence alleging the stepped aisle constituted a "stairwell" under the BCA and therefore ought to have had a handrail. The plaintiff also alleged that the chamfered edge of the steps exceeded the allowed tolerance of 5mm. The Decision at Trial In finding in favour of the plaintiff, Norton DCJ found that: the steps constituted a "stairwell" and therefore were in breach of the BCA due to the absence of a handrail and the presence of a chamfered edge exceeding 5mm in length. even if handrails were not required, the use of them would have been good and reasonable practice given the stadium was open during periods of darkness, inclement weather, and used by a persons of varying levels of physical agility. VNSW ought to have arranged a risk assessment of the entire stadium, particularly the areas which provided access along stepped surfaces. installation of a handrail (or building stairs with the required chamfered edge) would not impose a serious burden on VNSW, even if required on other similar steps. Issues on Appeal VNSW appealed the decision of Norton DCJ. The primary challenge was to the trial judge's finding that VNSW was in breach of its duty of care in failing to install a handrail. In addition, VNSW challenged the findings that the steps met the definition of a 'stairwell' under the BCA as well as the trial judge's assessment of damages. Decision on Appeal The Court of Appeal found that primary judge's finding of breach of duty on the part of VNSW could not stand for multiple reasons, including that it proceeded on an erroneous construction of s5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and the obvious nature of the danger presented by the steps. As to the determination of breach of duty, the Court stressed that the trial judge was wrong to proceed on the basis that the Court simply has regard to each of the seven matters raised in ss 5B and 5C of the CLA and then express a conclusion as to breach. Instead, the Court emphasised that s 5B(1)(c) is a gateway, such that a plaintiff who fails to satisfy that provision cannot succeed, with the matters raised in s 5B(2) being mandatory considerations to be borne in mind when determining s 5B(1)(c). Ultimately, regarding the primary question of breach of duty, the Court found that: The stadium contained hazards which were utterly familiar and obvious to any spectator, namely, steps which needed to be navigated to get to and to leave from the tiered seating. While the trial judge considered the mandatory requirements required by s5B(2) of the CLA, those matters are not exhaustive and the trial judge failed to pay proper to attention to the fact that: the stadium had been certified as BCA compliant eight years before the incident; there was no evidence of previous falls resulting in injury despite the stairs being used by millions of spectators over the previous eight years; and the horizontal surfaces of the steps were highly slip resistant when wet. In light of the above, the Court of Appeal did not accept a reasonable person in the position of VNSW would not have installed a handrail along the stepped aisle. The burden of taking the complained of precautions includes to address similar risks of harm throughout the stadium, i.e. installing handrails on the other stepped aisles. This was a mandatory consideration under s5C(a) which was not properly taken into account. As to the question of BCA compliance, the Court of Appeal did not consider it necessary to make a firm conclusion of this issue given it did not find a breach of duty. The Court did however indicated it did not consider the stepped aisle would constitute a "stairway" under the BCA. The Court of Appeal also found that there was nothing in the trial judge's reasons explicitly connecting the risk assessment she considered VNSW ought to have carried out, with the installation of handrails on any of the aisles in the stadium and therefore could not lead to any findings regarding breach or causation. As to quantum, the Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge erred in awarding the plaintiff a "buffer" of $10,000 for past economic loss in circumstances where there was no evidence of any loss of income. The Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the District Court and entered judgment for VNSW with costs. Why this case is important? The case confirms there is no obligation in negligence for owners and operators of public or private venues in NSW to have a handrail on every set of steps. It is also a welcome affirmation of the principles surrounding the assessment of breach of duty under s 5B and s 5C of the CLA, particularly in assessing whether precautions are required to be taken in response to hazards which are familiar and obvious to a reasonable person.

Published by Leighton Hawkes

18 August, 2023